United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(ECF NO. 7) ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(G) ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE
Ford (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis with this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on
September 26, 2016. (ECF No. 1). On March 21, 2017, the Court
dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, and explained
relevant legal principles. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff filed his
First Amended Complaint on April 13, 2017, (ECF No. 7), which
is before this Court for screening.
First Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff contracted
Valley Fever at Avenal State Prison. Plaintiff alleges that
when he initially alerted medical staff, they did not believe
that he was sick.
Court finds that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
fails to state a federal cause of action for violation of the
United States Constitution. The relevant legal standard
requires facts that could establish deliberate indifference
to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Plaintiff instead
alleges that medical staff wrongly came to the conclusion
that he did not need care. While these facts may establish a
state law claim for medical malpractice, they do not
establish a violation of the United States Constitution.
Moreover, Plaintiff still has not named a specific defendant
who failed to give him the required care.
light of the legal guidance given in its earlier screening
order, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint without leave to amend.
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or
any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the
action or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
complaint is required to contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual
allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.'” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere
possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this
plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a
plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts
“are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). Additionally, a plaintiff's legal
conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678.
of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342
(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints
should continue to be liberally construed after
SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2006, Plaintiff was housed at Avenal State Prison. Plaintiff
was exposed to, and contracted, the Valley Fever virus.
immediately contacted prison staff, along with numerous
amounts of written and verbal requests to medical personnel.
Plaintiff suffered from Valley Fever symptoms, such a trouble
breathing, chronic back pain, bone joint weakness, and
trouble standing. Eventually, Plaintiff's condition
became life threatening.
after exhausting all of his remedies for medical relief, the
first watch correctional officer noticed Plaintiff's
condition and called for an emergency medical transportation
unit. Before performing any tests, the medical personnel
stated that Plaintiff was not sick and refused to transport
Plaintiff to the hospital medical unit.
walking to the medical center, the doctor diagnosed Plaintiff
with Valley Fever and called for an immediate medical
transportation unit. Plaintiff was then transferred to
Coalinga Regional Medical Center.
COURT'S PRIOR SCREENING ORDER
made similar allegations in his original complaint. The Court
dismissed that complaint with leave to amend. The Court set
forth the legal standards for various claims, including
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation
of the Eighth Amendment, equal protection under the